Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)

[Ghostse]

Are you having trouble getting regulars together or having trouble finding groups at all?

Yes.
I usually run one-shots on game nights I can attend, but the this move it hasn't netted any players of quality. The FLGS closed down recently due to eminent domain. There is another option that might actually better (the old FLGS was mostly a Magic/CCG seller, this other shop is a a Table Top store [that is, board games, wargames, and ttrpg]) but is a bit of a haul and their "Open Table" night has a conflict with my schedule.

I have found a large number of groups at work (which can be nice because it naturally excludes obvious gooners), but my current employer is smaller, the wrong environment, and everyone lives out in the fucking hills so its a very hard sell to get them to go like an hour out of their way for games.

I will also say it probably doesn't help that I refuse to use Facebook.

I'm fortunate that my IRL gaming options have expanded fairly dramatically minus significant life changes and that unless something terrible happens I'll have people locked in for TTRPG adult roleplay autism therapy until the cows come home. Some are even open to different games that aren
t the WGRP™!

When I think about how people get added to gaming groups though it seems like a lot of "oh someone can't make it today, can so-and-so fill in?" and "I'm playing this game, any interest in coming out on Saturday?" which is a round-about way of saying that I guess most of my IRL games are generated via human networking and not instantly saying no to unfunny, flaky losers.

The idea of seeking groups online or sidling up to conventions and comic book shops on game nights feels nightmarish to me but if you've got no nodes to find groups, let alone ones you wan to play with, what else are your options? Online really isn't the same.

There is a reason I rail on people who just say "Well my group just ignores the latest woke lore" because one of these days you're going to have to find a new group.

How I usually found groups was by playing more "serious" boardgames and usually those people are up for D&D.

I guess the other positive thing about an online group is two players from my last group have expressed interest in joining a new campaign if I start one, but since they're on the other side of the country. So if I find another couple of players, I can beef up the party. But its the catch 22 of "before I introduce online autistic mutants to my real-life friends, I want to vet them and make sure they aren't planning to make the game a trip to their Magical Realm, but to do that I need a group to see how they interact with people".

I have thought about using RP Tools for recruiting, but their forums are dead, I guess everyone is one discord, and they all play Pathfinder. And I'd rather not play than play with PF grogs.

 

[The Ugly One]

However, PL'ing would be a serious risk. Even if I set up some purely anonymous voice only thing over Matrix or whatever else people use, you'd be giving away information.

I appear on television once in a while, but you probably have never seen my show. My name is Jimmy Kimmel, and I love to say the word "nigger" online. Please don't get me fired from my admittedly irrelevant and useless job!

 

[Overly Serious]

Well, it's a natural result of having different priorities in role play. I am in it for a fun story and to play an interesting character

Sounds like you and I and @Aib Ld should get together and build out from there. Based on the horror show story he just told he's a similar sort of GM to me - expects players to actually think and consider the world around them rather than be coddled from one level-appropriate encounter to the next. And is too exasperated by players continually failing by this point that he now just lets them fail (same here).

And as a player (when that happens) I have the same attitude as you - I want to play someone interesting, often flawed, and I'm in it for the story and the challenge. And maybe we could get @Ghostse as well. I'd suggest @The Ugly One too but now that I know who he is, I'm afraid that's out. I quite refuse to participate in a game with someone who does Black Face. Everyone must only RP someone of the same ethnicity and background as their real life self. That's the point of role-play, to be someone like yourself otherwise it's cultural appropriation. Why yes, that includes fictional cultures, why wouldn't it?

 

[Aib Ld]

Sounds like you and I and @Aib Ld should get together and build out from there. Based on the horror show story he just told he's a similar sort of GM to me - expects players to actually think and consider the world around them rather than be coddled from one level-appropriate encounter to the next. And is too exasperated by players continually failing by this point that he now just lets them fail (same here).

You'll be surprised to know that isn't the worst story I have. But all in all, I'm genuinely surprised to have a player that wisened up and paid attention. And it pained me to see him getting outvoted early on.
Seeing him still lead to "what were we thinking keeping that monster" regardless brighten up my day. That is what I wanted as a GM.

Spoiler: worst gm story i have yet

Player wanted to play a role that requires knowing about background knowledge. For him, I made him a brainwashed NPC rival. I kept notes on this rival behind the scenes for this player to unearth over time.
Thing is, he refused to read the rules of his class. So he expected he would know things as is. I told him about he needs to go up and find things to him twice. Still didn't read the rules.
So brainwashed NPC, after being buddy-buddy with him for a while, backstabbed him and left.
Player got mad and said he would know this happening. He thought the rival NPC wasn't played consistently. He did not do a single thing about his class. He does not know a single thing about the brainwashed NPC.
If he did, he would had known brainwashed NPC is brainwashed and is sent by a cult to worm up and learn on the party's info.
Because of his lack of effort, the rest of the party does not know about this either. I did not feel like throwing the cult at the rest of the group because of one retard refusing to read how his class works, so this sideplot was left behind with the NPC who left the party entirely with the items they gave him.

 

[40 Year Old Boomer]

I did not feel like throwing the cult at the rest of the group because of one retard refusing to read how his class works

Bad move, some people need to learn via the soap-sock scene in Full Metal Jacket.

 

[Overly Serious]

@Aib Ld I don't know what game you're running as you don't seem to have included that in the posts that I saw, but I recognize the pattern. I've found myself as GM in a similarly frustrating position in which the party is heading obliviously to a moment where they will utterly fail and my only option is to either change things behind the scenes so that what you don't know really can't hurt you or just watch the miserable outcome of everybody failing or dying.

As that's not a choice I enjoy, I've largely stopped running games for the time being, until somebody invents a smarter player.

 

[Brain Problems]

How I usually found groups was by playing more "serious" boardgames and usually those people are up for D&D.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Generally if they're open to playing something crunchier than Exploding Kittens or Uno, there's a greater chance of success. Although that said, I know a couple who enjoy lighter, stupider board games but also got into D&D when they moved across the goddamn country to a place with zero friends - they're just very social, which works in their favour for a few reasons.

 

[LovisXVI]

Sounds like you and I and @Aib Ld should get together and build out from there. Based on the horror show story he just told he's a similar sort of GM to me - expects players to actually think and consider the world around them rather than be coddled from one level-appropriate encounter to the next. And is too exasperated by players continually failing by this point that he now just lets them fail (same here).

And as a player (when that happens) I have the same attitude as you - I want to play someone interesting, often flawed, and I'm in it for the story and the challenge. And maybe we could get @Ghostse as well. I'd suggest @The Ugly One too but now that I know who he is, I'm afraid that's out. I quite refuse to participate in a game with someone who does Black Face. Everyone must only RP someone of the same ethnicity and background as their real life self. That's the point of role-play, to be someone like yourself otherwise it's cultural appropriation. Why yes, that includes fictional cultures, why wouldn't it?

Biggest tragedy in my experience as a player was a character who worshipped the setting's God of monsters, but was an otherwise standard violent barbarian. After clearing out a mine of orcs, we encountered a starved troll the orcs had trapped in a side passage. But rather than kill the thing like everyone else was rearing to do, my character attempted to communicate with it and get it out of the mine unarmed, feeding it some of the many, many dead orcs we had, which disappointed everyone except for me. If I were playing a more standard violent lunatic, I probably would have fought it, but I decided to just go with what I felt was most in-character. Naturally, I did not last long in the group and dipped due to clashes in the aim of play. Many such cases.

 

[Blarmed&Dangerous]

Biggest tragedy in my experience as a player was a character who worshipped the setting's God of monsters, but was an otherwise standard violent barbarian. After clearing out a mine of orcs, we encountered a starved troll the orcs had trapped in a side passage. But rather than kill the thing like everyone else was rearing to do, my character attempted to communicate with it and get it out of the mine unarmed, feeding it some of the many, many dead orcs we had, which disappointed everyone except for me. If I were playing a more standard violent lunatic, I probably would have fought it, but I decided to just go with what I felt was most in-character. Naturally, I did not last long in the group and dipped due to clashes in the aim of play. Many such cases.

Biggest tragedy in my experience as a player was a character who worshipped the setting's God of monsters, but was an otherwise standard violent barbarian. After clearing out a mine of orcs, we encountered a starved troll the orcs had trapped in a side passage. But rather than kill the thing like everyone else was rearing to do, my character attempted to communicate with it and get it out of the mine unarmed, feeding it some of the many, many dead orcs we had, which disappointed everyone except for me. If I were playing a more standard violent lunatic, I probably would have fought it, but I decided to just go with what I felt was most in-character. Naturally, I did not last long in the group and dipped due to clashes in the aim of play. Many such cases.

Nothing against you, but this is primarily why I've moved to more Braunstein/Domain Play stuff, because there is this tension between the advantage of a GM'd game over a computer game (tactical and narrative infinity) and the practical mechanics of conventional RPG play ("why would my druid ever leave the forest?" stuff, the overarching obligation to first and foremost make a character that will go on the adventure and be a part of the Getalong Gang as their defining characteristic, etc).

I personally think this tension is best resolved by dispensing with the notion of party entirely and structuring the game more fundamentally around player agency and player interaction.

 

[Aib Ld]

Bad move, some people need to learn via the soap-sock scene in Full Metal Jacket.

Yeah. I agree on that. Everytime I think about that experience, it always gave me somewhat regretful "I should had killed that guy's character to nip the problem in the bud" thoughts at the end. Gave me experience to throw the problem(s) at troublemaker player(s) so can't complain much. Being a GM is like being stabbed by a poisoned dagger as Serious already mentioned.

 

[The greater a'tuin]

After clearing out a mine of orcs, we encountered a starved troll the orcs had trapped in a side passage. But rather than kill the thing like everyone else was rearing to do, my character attempted to communicate with it and get it out of the mine unarmed, feeding it some of the many, many dead orcs we had, which disappointed everyone except for me.

This might not be the point, but always chaotic evil races are understood too myopically. A creature can be immutably evil and still hold a few positive traits, or at least function pragmatically enough to restrain their vices for a focused goal. It seems to be taken like every specimen must be a feral simple-minded monster with no personality, when there is plenty of room between that and a noble demon.

 

[The Ugly One]

I personally think this tension is best resolved by dispensing with the bottom

I likewise run homosexuals out of my group.

 

[Corn Flakes]

This might not be the point, but always chaotic evil races are understood too myopically. A creature can be immutably evil and still hold a few positive traits, or at least function pragmatically enough to restrain their vices for a focused goal. It seems to be taken like every specimen must be a feral simple-minded monster with no personality, when there is plenty of room between that and a noble demon.

Players should absolutely be able to strike up deals with orcs, goblins, trolls, ogres, anything with enough brain cells to understand the concept of "deal". Of course, they'd need the right leverage and to offer the monsters something they want, and they should keep an eye out for any sudden-yet-inevitable-betrayals. But both as a player and as someone who ran one-shots where this was an option, there are few things more satisfying than setting off a civil war inside a dungeon or turning a roadblock-type enemy (something big and meaty) around to help you in a fight or two.

 

[Blarmed&Dangerous]

I likewise run homosexuals out of my group.

KF fucked up while I was typing. It's fixed now. Thanks for the catch.

 

[AnOminous]

I personally think this tension is best resolved by dispensing with the notion of party entirely and structuring the game more fundamentally around player agency and player interaction.

This is how I eventually went, and my friends in college went, when we went from one form of game to another (the last real "campaign" I played and the last one I GMed went to almost no dice rolls ever). But if you actually do want to play hack and slash, you do need a party, and someone needs to be in charge of it.

It would nearly always be a paladin. I don't mean the actual class, because not all the games had that, but a character with a fundamental sense of fairness and refusal to compromise ethically. This happened in game after game. You needed a leader with a moral character.

Lawful Good isn't just an alignment, it's a good idea.

 

[LovisXVI]

Nothing against you, but this is primarily why I've moved to more Braunstein/Domain Play stuff, because there is this tension between the advantage of a GM'd game over a computer game (tactical and narrative infinity) and the practical mechanics of conventional RPG play ("why would my druid ever leave the forest?" stuff, the overarching obligation to first and foremost make a character that will go on the adventure and be a part of the Getalong Gang as their defining characteristic, etc).

I personally think this tension is best resolved by dispensing with the notion of party entirely and structuring the game more fundamentally around player agency and player interaction.

I would be inclined to agree. Most fun campaign I ever ran was one set in Vegas in Vampire the Masquerade with all the PCs as important power players that together ran a casino. They all went off to their own things and advanced the interests of their clans and whatnot. One day will do something similar with LA.

 

[40 Year Old Boomer]

Yeah. I agree on that. Everytime I think about that experience, it always gave me somewhat regretful "I should had killed that guy's character to nip the problem in the bud" thoughts at the end. Gave me experience to throw the problem(s) at troublemaker player(s) so can't complain much. Being a GM is like being stabbed by a poisoned dagger as Serious already mentioned.

You're still not getting it. The entire party suffers the consequences of the fool's actions so they learn to police their own.

 

[AnOminous]

You're still not getting it. The entire party suffers the consequences of the fool's actions so they learn to police their own.

This is why I always put the Lawful Good guy in charge of the party. Yes, he was an annoying fuddy-duddy, yes, he would shut it the fuck down for certain versions of what you considered "fun." But would he keep things moving? Yes. Would he be fair? Yes. When you won, thanks to not having a Chaotic Retard in charge, would he split up the goods fairly? Yes.

When I GMed my usual party, our "diverse" (i.e. a bunch of goddamn retarded niggers) party would sometimes dispute putting the Paladin in charge, but whenever it came down to a vote? Even the brain-dead psychotic half-orc assassin would grumblingly contribute the last (unanimous) vote for the LG dude.

I wonder if anyone has had a different experience because the ONE time they put a Chaotic Retard in charge was a TPK in my case.

 

[PancakesPancakesPancakes]

One Sector is perfectly normal for local scale, thats what all the old TTRPG's did. Than Wrath & Glory tried to shove the entire setting down into one single, solitary Planetary System.

 

[LovisXVI]

One Sector is perfectly normal for local scale, thats what all the old TTRPG's did. Than Wrath & Glory tried to shove the entire setting down into one single, solitary Planetary System.

Same with Traveller. Trying to put everything in one place is always a mistake. You need regions, even if it isn't a separate city, but areas that feel totally distinct are necessary to keep the setting from feeling cramped. It's why Seattle has the whole region, like Puyallup and Redmond as part of the mega-city and not just the built-up areas where you are expected to do lots of runs.